The Arguments Against Anscombe's Objection To Thought Experiments

784 Words4 Pages
The argument that Adam Walsh puts forward is a response against Anscombe’s objection to certain thought experiments in ethics, which argues that imagining these thought experiments represents a corrupt mind, and that by thinking over them can eventually corrupt the mind (Walsh, 2011: 476). Thought experiments involve imagining. In ethics, to conduct a thought experiment is to make a judgment about a hypothetical situation that is normally distant from our own world.

The objection is, that thought experiments based on the context of morally sensitive issues such as abortion is obnoxious and evidence of a corrupt mind (Walsh, 2011: 476). Anscombe formulated this objection and says that thought experiments treat morally serious issues in a thoughtless manner because she states that thought experiments involve abstract examples that are very different from reality (Walsh, 2011: 476). An example is Michael Tooley’s super-kittens case (Walsh, 2011: 476). This thought experiment is constructed with cats, which are given a drug, and from this drug they have the capability of performing human rational actions (Walsh, 2011: 476). Tooley’s assertion is postulating that if humans are worried about abortion as a foetus is a potential human, then we should be equally worried about the killing of cats
…show more content…
The reason why is that Anscombe is being too judgemental about thought experiments and suggest they are corrupt and irrelevant to argue. However, if we take the considerations of Walsh’s reply, we see that thought experiments cannot have the power to take over our minds, but rather they supply us with a different take on things. I agree with Walsh in saying that the use of thought experiments can turn our conventional perspectives around and look at situations with new perspectives. What I gather from Walsh is that thought experiments can sometimes provide relief to a situation instead of always viewing issues as
Open Document